HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shaner, D. L. Articles by Farahani, H. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Shaner, D. L. Articles by Farahani, H. J. Agricola Articles by Shaner, D. L. Articles by Farahani, H. J. Related Collections Case Studies Spatial Variability Field evaluation techniques Predictive soil mapping Soil Classification and Mapping Spatial Distribution

SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS & MANAGEMENT

How Well Does Zone Sampling Based on Soil Electrical Conductivity Maps Represent Soil Variability?

^a USDA-ARS, Water Management Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO 80526
^b Dep. Soil and Crop Sci., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
^c ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria

^* Corresponding author (raj.khosla{at}colostate.edu).

In zone soil sampling a field is divided into homogenous areas using an easy to measure ancillary attribute (e.g., apparent soil electrical conductivity [EC_a]) and a few samples are taken from each zone to estimate the soil characteristics in each zone. This study determined if EC_a–directed zone sampling in two fields in northeastern Colorado could correctly predict soil texture and soil organic matter (SOM) patterns of samples taken by a more intensive grid sample method. Each field, which were predominantly Bijou loamy sand (coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Ustic Haplargids), and Valentine sand (mixed, mesic Typic Ustipsamments), was divided into three ECa zones and soil texture and OM content in the top 30 cm of soil were measured. There was a significant difference in the soil texture and SOM in both fields between EC_a Zone 1 and Zone 3. Logistic regression showed that in both fields, approximately 80% of the grid sample sites in EC_a Zone 1 were correctly predicted. Only 50% of the grid sample sites in EC_a Zone 3 were correctly predicted as Zone 3 in one field whereas 77% of the grid sites in EC_a Zone 3 were correctly predicted in the other field. However, approximately 80% of the samples in the grid sites 10 m from the zone boundaries were classified correctly as compared to the samples that were <10 m from the boundary in which only 50 to 54% were classified correctly. These results support the utilization of EC_a-directed zone sampling as an alternative to grid soil sampling if the transition zones are avoided.

Abbreviations: EC_a, apparent soil electrical conductivity • EC_s, shallow apparent soil electrical conductivity, 0–0.3 m • EC_d, deep apparent soil electrical conductivity, 0–0.9 m. • GRD, grid soil sampling • SOM, soil organic matter • ZS, zone sampling

¹ Commercial product names are mentioned for the convenience of the reader and do not imply endorsement by USDA-Agricultural Research Service or the Colorado State University.

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Received for publication February 25, 2008.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Martinez, K. Vanderlinden, R. Ordonez, and J. L. Muriel Can Apparent Electrical Conductivity Improve the Spatial Characterization of Soil Organic Carbon? Vadose Zone J., July 7, 2009; 8(3): 586 - 593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]